City of Kingston - Heritage Kingston Committee Agenda - Meeting
04-2018 - Report HK-18-025City of Kingston Report to Heritage
Kingston Report Number HK-18-025
To: Chair and Members of Heritage Kingston From: Lanie Hurdle,
Commissioner, Community Services Resource Staff: Paige Agnew,
Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services Date of
Meeting: April 18, 2018 Subject: Application for Heritage Permit
Address: 268 Main Street (P18-416) File Number: P18-015-2018
Executive Summary:
The subject property at 268 Main Street is located on the east side
of Main Street in the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District
(HCD). The subject property contains St. Mark’s Anglican Church,
constructed 1843-1844.
An application for alteration under Section 42 of the Ontario
Heritage Act (File Number P18-015- 2018) has been submitted to gain
heritage approval to undertake a significant amount of masonry
re-pointing on and around the main bell tower, including a number
of buttresses.
This application was deemed complete on March 22, 2018. The Ontario
Heritage Act provides a maximum of 90 days for Council to render a
decision on an application to alter a heritage building under
Section 42(4). This timeframe will expire on June 20, 2018.
Upon review of all the submitted materials, as well as applicable
policies and legislation, staff have no concerns with the proposed
scope of work, subject to the conditions outlined herein.
Recommendation:
That Heritage Kingston supports Council’s approval of the
following:
That alterations to the property at 268 Main Street, be approved in
accordance with the details described in the application (File
Number P18-015-2018), which was deemed
25
April 18, 2018
Page 2 of 7
complete on March 22, 2018, with said repairs and re-pointing to
the main bell tower and a number of buttresses; and That the
approval of the alterations be subject to the following
condition:
1. All masonry works shall be completed in accordance with the
City’s Policy on Masonry Restoration on Heritage Buildings.
26
April 18, 2018
Consultation with the following Members of the Corporate Management
Team:
Jim Keech, President & CEO, Utilities Kingston Not
required
Desirée Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer & City Treasurer Not
required
Denis Leger, Commissioner, Corporate & Emergency Services Not
required
27
jcthompson
Commissioner
jcthompson
CAO
April 18, 2018
Options/Discussion:
Description of Application The subject property at 268 Main Street
is located on the east side of Main Street, in the Barriefield HCD
(Exhibit A - Context Map & Photos). The subject property
contains St. Mark’s Anglican Church, a Gothic Revival Style church
designed and built by Richard Jones in 1843- 1844.
In the fall, emergency repairs and re-pointing were carried out on
the tops of the buttresses along the north and south elevations to
seal some of the holes to prevent water ingress and further damage
over the winter. Additionally, a hole on the upper portion of the
southeast corner of the tower was filled.
An application for alteration under Section 42 of the Ontario
Heritage Act (File Number P18-015- 2018) has been submitted to gain
heritage approval to undertake a significant amount of masonry
re-pointing on and around the main bell tower, including a number
of the buttresses. The extent of re-pointing can only be confirmed
upon commencement of the works, and stone replacement may be
required. However, it is anticipated that the majority of the
re-pointing work will take place on the southeast corner of the
tower.
The applicant has submitted information from structural engineer,
Andy Huctwith (Exhibit B - Letters from Engineer), outlining the
scope of work above.
All submission materials are available online through the
Development and Services Hub (DASH) at the following link, DASH,
using “Look-up a Specific Address”. If there are multiple
addresses, search one address at a time. Submission materials may
also be found by searching the file number.
This application was deemed complete on March 22, 2018. The Ontario
Heritage Act provides a maximum of 90 days for Council to render a
decision on an application to alter a heritage building under
Section 42(4). This timeframe will expire on June 20, 2018.
Reasons for Designation The subject property was designated under
Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2016 through By-Law Number
2016-173. It was included in the Barriefield HCD created pursuant
to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1979 and amended in 2016.
The District Plan describes the church as:
“A two storey (plus tower) Gothic Revival structure. It is located
towards the northern edge of the Barriefield District, and its
tower is visible from Highway 15 and 2, making it a landmark
structure in Barriefield.”
The HCD Plan identifies the Church as a ‘Heritage’ property in
Appendix A: Inventory of properties within the Barriefield HCD
(Exhibit C).
April 18, 2018
Page 5 of 7
Cultural Heritage Analysis As a landmark structure and the only
church in the village, St. Mark’s Anglican Church is significant to
the cultural heritage value of Barriefield and is listed as an
attribute of the District on page 17 of the District Plan:
“St. Mark’s Church being located on a high point of land open to
views from multiple directions”
The proposed repair and re-pointing work is required to conserve
St. Mark’s Anglican Church as a heritage attribute of the
Barriefield HCD. The proposed repairs also support the Conservation
Goals and Objectives as set out on page 18 and 19 of the District
Plan, including:
Goal: To conserve the Village of Barriefield’s heritage attributes
by allowing only those changes that are compatible with the built
form and that are consistent with the cultural heritage value of
the District.
Objectives:
a) To ensure the conservation, maintenance, enhancement and
protection of the cultural heritage value of the District;
d) To encourage the ongoing maintenance and repair of Heritage
buildings by property owners;
e) To support the continuing care, conservation and restoration of
Heritage buildings by providing guidance on sound conservation
practice and encouraging applications to funding sources for
eligible work; and
h) To protect significant historic views.
Additionally, limestone is one of the primary building materials
found in the District and is listed as a heritage attribute in the
District Plan. Given the cultural heritage value of limestone in
the District, combined with the significance of limestone to the
City and wider region, the conservation of St. Mark’s Anglican
Church and bell tower will provide considerable public benefit. All
works are to be completed in accordance with the City’s Policy on
Masonry Restoration in Heritage Buildings and best practices in
heritage conservation, including the Standards and Guidelines for
the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
Upon review of all of the submitted materials, as well as
applicable policies and legislation, staff have no concerns with
the proposed application, subject to the conditions outlined
herein.
Previous Approvals P18-089-2016 Replacement of limestone step with
concrete step.
P18-031-2017 Reconstruction of existing limestone walls flanking
entrance and two short walls within the municipal
right-of-way.
29
April 18, 2018
Comments from Departments and Agencies The following internal
departments have commented on this application:
Building Division: Where significant structural repairs are
required a building permit is required. It does not appear that a
Building Permit is required based on the scope of work
described.
Engineering Department: Engineering has reviewed the proposal and
have no objections.
Utilities Kingston: Utilities Kingston has no issues or concerns
with this application.
Consultation with Heritage Kingston Heritage Kingston was consulted
on this application through the DASH system. A summary of
consultation is attached as Exhibit D. No comments were provided by
members of the Committee as they relate to this proposal.
Conclusion Staff recommend approval of the application (File Number
P18-015-2018), subject to the conditions outlined herein, as there
are no objections from a built heritage perspective, and no
concerns have been raised by internal departments or members of the
Committee.
Existing Policy/By-Law:
Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada (Parks Canada) Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.O. 18
(Province of Ontario) Village of Barriefield Heritage Conservation
District Plan City’s Policy on Masonry Restoration in Heritage
Buildings
Notice Provisions:
Pursuant to Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), notice
of receipt of a complete application has been served on the
applicant.
Accessibility Considerations:
Not applicable
Financial Considerations:
Not applicable
Alex Rowse-Thompson, Planner, Heritage 613-546-4291 extension
3251
30
April 18, 2018
Other City of Kingston Staff Consulted:
The application was circulated internally for review and all
comments have been incorporated.
Exhibits Attached:
Exhibit B Letters from Engineer, Prepared by Andy Huctwith,
WSP
Exhibit C Property Inventory Evaluation
Exhibit D Correspondence Received from Heritage Kingston
Exhibit E Final Comments from Heritage Kingston – April 18,
2018
31
Subject Property
Exhibit B
Suite 101
Tel.: +1 613 546-2227
Fax: +1 613 546-3555
October 10, 2017
St. Mark's Anglican Church 268 Main Street Barriefield, ON K7K
5S6
Email:
[email protected]
Dear Sir:
Subject: Inspection
On September 30, 2017, Andy Huctwith P.Eng., reviewed the condition
of the stone at St. Mark's Church. The church had noticed
indications of deterioration and had asked that they be reviewed.
When the stone was examined several issues were identified which
would suggest that a project is required. Currently it is too late
in the year to start a significant stone project and the results of
the inspection indicate that at least a decent amount of work is
required to the southwest buttress and the southeast pilaster of
the tower. This fall it would be good as a preventative measure to
seal some of the open joints before the winter if at all possible
using one day of masonry patching from a genie boom.
The southwest buttress of the tower is exposed to the effects of
temperature gradients as the tower is warmer than the buttress
during the winter months. In addition the south side of the church
is exposed to warming from the sun during the day and cold at night
which increases the number of freeze thaw cycles and drives the
damage. As a result cracks have formed and water is let in through
the cracks to freeze and cause additional damage. To combat these
effects in past projects the inclusion of Perma-chink joints
(partial expansion joints) has been intended reduced the amount of
cracking and has been effective but has not stopped it.
Particularly on the backside of the buttress which faces the sun
there are currently issues with cracked stones and cracked joints
heading up the buttresses and some stone replacement and pointing
is required. Given that it is too late in the year to ensure that
all work would be completed this work should be scheduled for the
spring.
At the southeast upper portion of the tower there is a hole where
mortar has fallen out and it is now letting water to enter this
corner of the tower. Below
WSP Canada Group Limited 34
Exhibit B
this hole are a series of cracks that may be related to the entry
of water. There is a twist in the stonework of this corner but when
we compare photos of the tower from 10 years ago to today the twist
appears to be present in the corner 10 years ago and has not
significantly increased. It is interesting that the cracks that
currently are visible in the tower have shifted one joint to the
east from the previous cracks indicating that either the repairs
were effective and the weakest point is now shifted to another
joint or that there is still issues in the corner which must be
addressed. Ideally this entire corner would be chipped and
re-pointed but again this is an operation that would have to start
in the spring. Ideally the hole at the top of this corner of the
buttress would be addressed prior to the winter to reduce further
damage.
The remainder of the church was reviewed and there are a series of
open joints which could be addressed prior to winter in order to
keep water from deteriorating other areas of the stone. These
include the minor buttresses along the sides of the church and some
individual missing joints near areas which have been damp as well
as along the ground.
The inspection appears to indicate that while there is cracking and
deterioration of the buttresses and the tower major shifts in the
tower have not occurred. At some point the interior of the tower
should be reviewed. Steel frames had been added in the 1990’s which
should control the position of the corners of the church however
some additions have been made relative to cell phone equipment
since the time of that construction. The inspection did not
indicate significant movement however with a onetime inspection the
rate of change cannot be assessed. The tower should be monitored by
the church and if any changes in the size, location or frequency of
the cracks are observed this winter by the church the tower and the
movement should be reassessed.
In addition to the stone issues it was noted that the lightning
protection system at the North East corner has been cut above the
ground and is not connected and therefore does not provide any
protection, this ground should be reconnected.
Discussions indicate the church is aware that the rear
accessibility ramp is deteriorated and the rim beams are to the
point where they would not support much load. This area should be
rectified if this ramp is to remain open.
As far as the one day masonry patching work this fall, the church
has a history of using mainly two masonry companies. Either Upper
Canada Stonehouse Group or Satin Masonry. It was thought that both
companies would be completely unavailable this fall as I had talked
to the one and the other was completely booked by Queen’s projects.
It turns out that Santin Masonry must shutdown their jobs at Queens
on the homecoming weekend and therefore would be available this
Friday. While this is extremely short notice we would
Page 2 35
Exhibit B
suggest that you take advantage of this opportunity given that the
church has a relationship with Santin and that this window will not
be available for the remainder of the year.
The intent of the work in this one-day blitz would be to seal some
of the holes to prevent water from making the problems worse this
winter. While it costs a significant amount to mobilize a genie
boom and the Masons for one day the preventative nature of the work
provides a significant benefit. The attached photographs show some
of the areas that would be of concern over the winter months.
For the spring work we can work with the church and develop a
budget however we will take the information from the genie boom
access into account before providing those budgets.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours truly,
Encl.
Stone Inspection September 2017
PHOTO 1: Southeast Corner of Tower Showing cracks in the face of
the pilaster.
PHOTO 2: Hole due to missing mortar at top of Southeast Corner of
Tower.
WSP Page 1 of 2
37
Stone Inspection September 2017
PHOTO 3: Open joints at top of minor buttress at sight of
Church.
Photo 4: Deteriorated beams under handicap summary under
accessibility ramp.
WSP Page 2 of 2
38
F +1 613 546-3555
On December 15th, 2017, Andy Huctwith P.Eng., reviewed the
condition
of the interior of the tower stone at St. Mark's Church in the hope
of
refining the budget for immediate stonework at the church. The
review of
the interior of the tower was encouraging as the stonework did not
appear
to show signs of the issues that were seen on the exterior of the
corners of
the tower as described in the earlier inspection letter.
The maintenance of stone church is a matter of balancing
maintenance
pointing with more significant repairs. While maintenance pointing
can
generally be completed from man lifts proper scaffold is required
to
complete significant stone replacement and this comes with a
significant
access cost. The asset management for the structure therefore
becomes a
matter of balancing of doing as much as one can from the lift and
allowing
just enough deterioration to justify the cost of the scaffold but
not so much
that deterioration progresses to the point where the replacement
stone and
rebuilding is so costly that the access should have been paid for
earlier.
On top of trying to estimate the correct timing one has to
superimpose that
in some cases the surface can look good and hide issues
inside.
While any stonework can always use maintenance the buttress and
the
back corner have reached the point where the cost of scaffold
is
warranted. In the case of the buttress the stone damage is more
obvious
and this again is related to the issues with differential
temperature
movements between the tower and the buttress that have been
described
before. The issues and cracking will always reoccur and this will
be a
maintenance item for the life of the church. The back corner has
the
potential for more unknowns. The cracking would indicate some
water
WSP Canada Group Limited 39
Exhibit B
has entered the tower or could also be related to temperature or
changes in
the tower. During the fall filling of the joints the major goal was
to try to
limit the entry of water which would cause further immediate
damage. It
was not possible to definitively identify just how bad the issues
at the
corner were and their full extent.
Based on previous estimates and discussions with the contractor a
budget
of $80,000 for construction was estimated. While this is not the
maximum
amount the issues could cost if the back corner is more severe
than
anticipated it is thought that it is slightly more than the likely
cost. Until
stone is marked and the joints removed and the interior of the
corner can
be explored this is our best estimate of the cost. If it is found
that the
money can be raised and the issues at the corner are not as severe
or that
more money is available there are other issues which can be
addressed
elsewhere in the church. The focus of this project will be the
buttress and
the corner and these area will be the only areas scheduled to be
included
unless efficiencies are found. The access will be targeted to these
issues
and while any areas that the access also reaches could be completed
this
would be decided after the main issues are addressed.
The one day masonry blitz turned into a two day or day and half
masonry
blitz but it is my understanding that the cost did not increase.
This is the
type of behaviour I have witnessed from Santin Masonry on other
projects
particularly when they are working on churches. The church
has
expressed interest in continuing with Santin in the spring and
while the
other mason mentioned at the time of the inspection operates
somewhat
similarly Santin to date has earned the owners trust. The work in
the fall
when reviewed Friday appeared to be effective. The worst of the
cold and
changes in temperature in the spring of course have not yet
occurred but
some of the issue are masked by the maintenance pointing making the
two
areas look slightly better. It is anticipated that the maintenance
pointing
should limit water as intended until the spring. It will be
interesting to see
if any corner cracking reappears in the spring.
While more information will be found when the work proceeds we
would
estimate that the construction budget should be estimated at
$80,000 plus
HST. Our fees will depend on our involvement and both the
contract
method and contractor who is finally chosen for the work. We have
found
in the past that inspecting Santin Masonry is less costly than most
other
contractors and what is needed for the church to be satisfied with
the
contractual relationship with the contractor as far as contract
documents
would also affect our fees. Our fees would be in addition to
the
construction estimate.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Page 2 40
Name: St. Mark’s Anglican Church
Address: 268 Main Street
Lot: CON EGCR N PT LOT 19 ST;MARKS CHURCH HALL
Property Type: Church Era/Date of Construction: 1843-1844
Architect/Builder: Richard Jones Building style/Influence: Gothic
Revival Materials: Stone Number of Bays: Three Roof Type Front
gable with tower Building Height: Two storey plus tower
Alterations: Addition of chancel and sanctuary (1897), balcony
and
choir loft moved to front of church (1897), church hall constructed
next to church (1961), bell tower restored (1993), steel cladding
installed (1998), bell tower masonry restored (2006), roof soffit,
fascia, eaves, troughs and downspout repaired and restored (2007),
chimney repaired (2007), section of bell tower repointed
(2010-2012)
Landscape/setting: Large lot, open lawn, shrubs and specimen
plantings, long driveway, constructed on rise of land
Heritage Value: Heritage
Description of Historic Place:
St. Mark’s Church is a two storey (plus tower) Gothic Revival
structure. It is located towards the northern edge of the
Barriefield District, and its tower is visible from Highway 15 and
Highway 2, making it a landmark structure in Barriefield.
Heritage Value:
A public meeting was held in March 1843 at the James Medley House
to discuss erecting a church for Barriefield. Land was donated by
John Marks and a tender was let to Richard Jones to build a stone
church by May 1844. St. Mark's was opened for services in July 1844
by Archdeacon George Okill Stuart of Kingston. The church
MHBC April 2015
Exhibit Exhibit C
Village of Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan update
Heritage Conservation District Inventory (REVISED DRAFT)
underwent a major renovation in 1897 with the addition of a chancel
and sanctuary. The balcony and choir loft were moved to the front
of the church. Several Barriefield buildings have served as the
parish rectory over the years including Barriefield House,
Willowmere, and the John Marks House. The parish hall has been at
different times located in the township hall and the 1850
Barriefield school. A new hall was erected in 1961 next to the
church. The property is still partially enclosed with a dry stone
fence and stone pillars at the entranceway. St. Mark's is an
important landmark building within the heritage conservation
district.
St Mark’s Church is a two storey structure with central front tower
constructed in the Gothic Revival Style. The church is constructed
of stone and features a front gable roof. The Church features many
of the hallmarks of the Gothic Revival style, including lancet
(pointed arch) window and door openings, buttresses and tower. The
church also features recessed quatrefoil details on the front, and
stained glass windows. A stone fence with tall pillars and a
pointed, gothic motif cap are located at the entrance to the
church.
Heritage Attributes:
Elements that define the historical value of the property
include:
- Use of the property as a church/community amenity - Status as the
only village church
Elements that define the architectural value of the property
include:
- Two storey stone construction - Central square front tower -
Stone buttresses - Lancet windows and louvred opening in tower -
Stone courses surrounding windows and stone sills - Pointed arch
wooden double door - Quatrefoils in gable on either side of the
tower - Front gable roof
Elements that define the contextual value of the property
include:
- Deep setback from street - Long central drive - Location on rise
of land - Stone fence and pillars
Mixed vegetation framing the lot
MHBC April 2015
Heritage Kingston Summary of Input from the Technical Review
Process
P18-015-2018
No Comments Provided
No Response Received
following final comments were provided at the April 18, 2018
Heritage Kingston meeting:
Exhibit E
Exhibit C - Property Evaluation
Exhibit E - Final Comments from Heritage Kingston. cm